Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Bushman v. Halm
798 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 80 times
Holding that a lay person can determine causation where a broken leg was sustained in a car accident but should be aided by expert testimony to link a psychiatric illness to its cause
St. Francis Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
729 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 30 times
Stating that "holding a rerun election simply because of the passage of time rewards employer recalcitrance and offers no deterrence to future unfair labor practices"
N.L.R.B. v. Advertisers Mfg. Co.
823 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir. 1987) Cited 20 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer violated Section 8 in terminating supervisory employee in retaliation for her son's rights to engage in concerted activities
Charge Card Ass'n v. N.L.R.B
653 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1981) Cited 12 times
In Charge Card Ass'n v. NLRB, 653 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1981), our court for the first time indicated that "the proper test for evaluating mixed-motive cases is whether punishment of a protected act... was a dominant motive in the employer's actions."
Graves Trucking, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
692 F.2d 470 (7th Cir. 1982) Cited 7 times
No. 79-2467. Argued October 21, 1980. Decided November 1, 1982. John C. Theisen, Gallucci, Hopkins Theisen, Fort Wayne, Ind., for petitioner. Richard Michael Fischl, Elliott Moore, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge, and TEMPLAR, Senior District Judge. Senior District Judge George Templar of the District of Kansas sitting by designation. FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit
National Labor Bd. v. Talladega Cotton
213 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1954) Cited 33 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Talladega Cotton Factory, 213 F.2d 209, 40 A.L.R.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1954), the Company fired supervisors for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice.

Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that a lay person can determine causation where a broken leg was sustained in a car accident but should be aided by expert testimony to link a psychiatric illness to its cause

Stating that "holding a rerun election simply because of the passage of time rewards employer recalcitrance and offers no deterrence to future unfair labor practices"

Holding that employer violated Section 8 in terminating supervisory employee in retaliation for her son's rights to engage in concerted activities

In Charge Card Ass'n v. NLRB, 653 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1981), our court for the first time indicated that "the proper test for evaluating mixed-motive cases is whether punishment of a protected act... was a dominant motive in the employer's actions."

In National Labor Relations Board v. Talladega Cotton Factory, 213 F.2d 209, 40 A.L.R.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1954), the Company fired supervisors for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice.